Rapid speciation after the flood

Some creationists here propose that evidence for non-random mutaitons could have led to rapid speciation after the flood. Even if this were true (actually there definitely is some non-random mutaiton), would it really be needed?What's wrong with there simply being rich gene pools and speciation via selective loss through natural selction/niche finding?Are you aware that brocolli, cabbage and cauliflower were selectively bred over the last few centuies from a wild mustard populaiton?Is it that the allelic mutaiton rates would be too high? What is it exactly? Why do we need your idea?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

not to mention the dearth of evidence for a world-wide flood

So lets say all life of earth arose by normal processes in a few hundred years when approximtely would you expect life to have reached the diversity that we observe today (or observed pre human intervention). Surely this period of low biodiversity would leave traces like reduced diversity pollen. I believe there are deposits that contain pollen that extend well into pre flood times so they sould also cover this post flood time.

Depending on which flood model we go for there may not be much post-flood sedimentation to find such a record. Mainstream science would have 4500 years as a geological split second and we mostly agree (minus ice ages). Diversity will coninue to be dynamically changing but it makes sense for a new equilibrium to need occur and then level off. My only guesses would be based on fitting with known diversity in ancient times. I just don't know enough about that to guess. The wild mustard example simply gives us a hint of what is possible.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

I am no expert on flood geology but surely there would have been large amounts of exposed sediment lying around after the flood and with no plant cover this would have made ideal conditions for rapid erosion and deposition after the flood. Also were there even plants on the arc? as far as i am aware there is no mention of them being on the arc and they were just left to suvive as they could in which case certain plants (those with hard shelled seeds such as coconuts and plants where the seed is usually waterborne) would have dominated the post flood world. regarding rapid speciation apparently it would be possible to get from a type of grass to modern wheat in about 25 years if you knew what you were doing (heard it on the radio and can't find ref annoyingly).

quote:

---

TB: Some creationists here propose that evidence for non-random mutaitons could have led to rapid speciation after the flood. Even if this were true (actually there definitely is some non-random mutaiton), would it really be needed?

---

As it turns out, it would not. To recap, Haldane provided a mathematical model in the late 50s that calculated the fixation rate for beneficial mutations. It put a speed limit on how fast beneficial mutations can fix in a population. It became known as Haldane’s Dilemma. Some creationists, including Dr Kurt Wise and myself, noted that while Haldane’s Dilemma certainly is a serious problem for evolution, it also was a problem for rapid diversity after the flood. But upon further examination it turns out to not be much a problem at all, because there essentially is no speed limit on the rate in which neutral and deleterious mutations can become fixed. Thus, it turns out to be a non-issue for diversification since the flood.At the time it appeared to be an issue, I proposed that non-random mutations would easily solve the problem because they would incur no fixation cost. But since the revelation above, I backed off of this over 6 months ago. From a design standpoint, I still believe there is a likelihood that non-random, adaptive mutations exist (Peter has provided evidence on this board; Cairns et al also support their existence, but the debate still rages).

quote:

---

Why do we need your idea?

---

Because their existence refutes NDT. The evolutionists would have to redefine the current paradigm. No problem, they’ve done it many times before! PS. I have an Ohno citation somewhere that I think supports your Gene Family Explosion idea. I’ll post it as soon as I find it

Thanks (again) Fred - I needed that refresher & thanks for the Ohno ref.I think the key issue is that NDT, with or without non-random mutations, is sufficent to generate the sorts of speciation that YECs require and that macroevolution (i) requires significantly different mechanisms and (ii) these mechanisms are primarily a faith position.Putting the Cambrian explosion down to a 10 million year event does have enormous repercussions. Macroevolution is effectively in the completely impossible category. It's God or Vulcans.PS - But why is non-random mutaitons still such a big deal? Who cares if it brings a Lamarkian element to evolution? Why are you still interested in it? Don't get me wrong - I'm interested in it - but not from a C vs E POV. Is it still the idea that this non-random effect might be designed in?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Thus, it turns out to be a non-issue for diversification since the flood.

---

So why is it a problem for evolution?

quote:

---

From a design standpoint, I still believe there is a likelihood that non-random, adaptive mutations exist (Peter has provided evidence on this board; Cairns et al also support their existence, but the debate still rages).

---

What evidence did Borger supply for 'directed mutations'? And what is the evidence for your hyperbolic concluding statement? Your desire for it to be so is not, remember, evidence.

quote:

---

Why do we need your idea?

​

Because their existence refutes NDT. The evolutionists would have to redefine the current paradigm. No problem, they’ve done it many times before!

---

Indeed - shame that Williams the creationist cannot see the value of updating a theory based on new evidence. The creationist prefers to stick with the mythology laid down centuries ago by desert nomads, contrary evidence be damned.

quote:

---

What's wrong with there simply being rich gene pools and speciation via selective loss through natural selction/niche finding?

---

I am wondering how you have a rich gene pool when you start with only two individuals of each kind (whatever the heck that is) for all the unclean Kinds. That would seem to me to be a rather limited gene pool for generating lots of new species by whatever mechanism.

quote:

---

Are you aware that brocolli, cabbage and cauliflower were selectively bred over the last few centuies from a wild mustard populaiton?

---

I wonder about that since it seems to me that these vegetables were known in ancient times. I could be wrong but I think I have seen some really old herbal medicine books that mention them. Didn't Cato recommend eating cabbage in about 200 BCE? I wouldn't be surprised if Galen (2 century AD) referred to them as well. It also seems to me that the ancient Chinese knew these veggies so how could they have been bred in the last few centuries? Perhaps you are thinking of studies showing that they are all related to wild mustard. Anyway, how do you think you can get all these veggies from wild mustard in a few hundred years and yet it would not be possible to get humans and chimps from a common ancestor in a few million years? Seems pretty inconsistent to me.Randy

quote:

---

Putting the Cambrian explosion down to a 10 million year event does have enormous repercussions. Macroevolution is effectively in the completely impossible category. It's God or Vulcans.

---

It may be even worse than that, because of recent fossil finds in China. Some scientists believe the Cambrian explosion has collapsed to between 2 and 3 million years! Seehttp://unityinchrist.com/...ArticleTUESDAY_MAY%2030_2000.htmAndnewcreationist.com is registered with Pair Domains

quote:

---

PS - But why is non-random mutaitons still such a big deal? Who cares if it brings a Lamarkian element to evolution? Why are you still interested in it? Don't get me wrong - I'm interested in it - but not from a C vs E POV. Is it still the idea that this non-random effect might be designed in?

---

From a non-C/E POV I’m interested because it makes good design sense for God to have encoded adaptable changes that do not require selection alone to enforce them.From a C/E POV, here is why:The argument that adaptively directed mutations does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory D Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology, 1998, p 282As Peter pointed out, it falsifies NDT by the evos own standards. But we know it won’t in the long run, they’ll just change the theory to accommodate them. Page has already hinted at this! It shows the malleability of their theory. I like how Walter Remine put it: evolutionary theory adapts to the data like fog on a landscape.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

PS - But why is non-random mutaitons still such a big deal? Who cares if it brings a Lamarkian element to evolution? Why are you still interested in it? Don't get me wrong - I'm interested in it - but not from a C vs E POV. Is it still the idea that this non-random effect might be designed in?

---

​

From a non-C/E POV I’m interested because it makes good design sense for God to have encoded adaptable changes that do not require selection alone to enforce them.

---

It sure does. Any evidence that this is the case?

quote:

---

From a C/E POV, here is why:

​

The argument that adaptively directed mutations does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory D Futuyama, Evolutionary Biology, 1998, p 282

​

As Peter pointed out, it falsifies NDT by the evos own standards. But we know it won’t in the long run, they’ll just change the theory to accommodate them. Page has already hinted at this! It shows the malleability of their theory. I like how Walter Remine put it: evolutionary theory adapts to the data like fog on a landscape.

---

You misrepresent me. I hinted at nothing, except for the fact that real science must adapt to new information. If it does not, it is dogma. That is why YECism is not science, because its adherents will never change their minds regardless of the evidence.I also like how Walter ReMine wrote that his theory make s'risky' testable predictions, but has yet to actually lay them out.Of course, ReMine is an electrical engineer creationist, so why should anyone really care what he says anyway?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
But upon further examination it turns out to not be much a problem at all, because there essentially is no speed limit on the rate in which neutral and deleterious mutations can become fixed. Thus, it turns out to be a non-issue for diversification since the flood.

---

From:"Answering Evolutionist Attempts to Dismiss "Haldane's Dilemma"
Fred Williams
October 2000"In fact, neutral mutations incur a greater cost, since they will have a greater propensity to drift back and forth in frequency since they have no selective value. Every time the frequency goes down, it negates any previous payment made by reproductive excess to get it to that frequency; when it drifts back up, a new payment via excess reproduction is needed, hence net cost is increased."How can there be no speed limit when, according to you, and apparently you alone, there is a greater cost associated with them?Or have you flip-flopped on this within the last six months, too?

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
But upon further examination it turns out to not be much a problem at all, because there essentially is no speed limit on the rate in which neutral and deleterious mutations can become fixed. Thus, it turns out to be a non-issue for diversification since the flood.

---

​

From:

​

"Answering Evolutionist Attempts to Dismiss "Haldane's Dilemma"
Fred Williams
October 2000

​

"In fact, neutral mutations incur a greater cost, since they will have a greater propensity to drift back and forth in frequency since they have no selective value. Every time the frequency goes down, it negates any previous payment made by reproductive excess to get it to that frequency; when it drifts back up, a new payment via excess reproduction is needed, hence net cost is increased."

​

How can there be no speed limit when, according to you, and apparently you alone, there is a greater cost associated with them?

​

Or have you flip-flopped on this within the last six months, too?

---

http://EvC Forum: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics -->EvC Forum: SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

RandyThe gene pool in a pair may be sufficiently rich due to being unspecialised. A wild type is more diverse than a bred or niche form. There may only be primarily four diffent alleles per gene but if all the gene types are in a pair of individuals that leaves a lot of options for cutting down on non-essential genes, in addition to diversity due to the handful of alleles per gene. What we know about population genetics is suggestive of these ideas - in detail it of course needs to be proven.My wild mustard claims come straight out of mainstream textbooks and it is a claim of recent breeding not simply long term relationship. The flower has been selected for in brocolli, the leaf has been selected for in cabbage. The dog story is equally illuminating.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-14-2002]

FredI guess my comment is that both random and non-random effects come into microevoltuion. From a molecular point of view who cares about the pontificating of some big shot? Who cares about NDT - none of the artificial evoltuion guys running companies in Silicon Valley (generating novel enzyme sub-families) care one bit about the technical definition of NDT! If we find mechanisms of change then that is what evolution uses.I agree that historically science stamped out Lamarkism so it is unpleasant to have to let him back in again but I don't think it is any more than that. OK, evolutionists like to be able to say that it is random and undirected but if there is a naturalistic mechanism for non-random evolution that actually helps the phenotype I hardly see how this helps the creationist cause? Do you guys propose the non-randomness is coming directly from the hand of God?